Social entrenchment influences the amount of areal borrowing in contact languages

Aims and objectives: Social factors in language contact are not well understood. This study seeks to establish and explain the role of social entrenchment in the evolution of contact languages. It also aims to contribute to a broader perspective on areality that can account for social and linguistic factors in contact outcomes involving all languages present in multilingual ecologies, including contact languages. Methodology: The copula system was singled out for a detailed analysis. A corpus of primary data of the three African English-lexifier contact languages, Pichi, Cameroon Pidgin, and Ghanaian Pidgin, their ancestor Krio, and of their African adstrates (Bube, Mokpe, Akan) and European superstrates (Spanish, English) was investigated and compared. Data and analysis: Relevant features were selected for a dissimilarity matrix. A quantitative analysis was done with SplitsTree4. The resulting distance matrix and phylogenetic network were investigated for signals of genealogical transmission and areal diffusion and interpreted on their social background. Findings/conclusions: The copula systems of the three contact languages carry a genealogical signal of their ancestor Krio as well as an areal signal from the adstrates and superstrates spoken in their respective ecologies. The amount of areal borrowing increases in the order Pichi < Cameroon Pidgin < Ghanaian Pidgin, reflective of the depth of social entrenchment of each variety from left to right. Originality: Previous studies do not describe the copula systems of the English-lexifier contact languages of Africa and the Caribbean at a similar level of granularity and mostly focus on their emergence during creolization. This study attempts to explain their subsequent areal differentiation and links it to differences in social ecologies. Significance/implications: Areal borrowing can lead to significant departures from genealogically inherited structures within a short time if social entrenchment is shallow. Conversely, even languages of wider communication can remain remarkably stable if social entrenchment is deep.